Five Sequential Facets of Effective Execution: Integrating Events, Outcomes, Results and Accomplishments, and Actualization

Execution is the key to competitiveness. Even a suboptimal strategy can be made to work with superior execution while even a great strategy can be rendered suboptimal by inferior execution. There is lot of management literature on planning, strategy and the like but very little on execution. Two books  merit mention: the first is “Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done” by Larry Bossidy and Ram Charan and the second is “The Four Disciplines of Execution: Achieving Your Wildly Important Goals” by Sean Covey, Jim Huling and Chris McChinsey. Probably, execution is seen as simple as as following a set of instructions or rules embedded in budgets and plans, developed pursuant to goals. The book by Sean Covey focuses on the behavioural aspects of execution, and brings out Focus, leverage, engagement and accountability are considered the four critical disciplines of execution.

Execution at shop floor level or in construction site is rather easy to monitor. However, execution of a business is more challenging due to the involvement of countless agencies and people, both internally and externally, operating under conditions not fully under ones control. One may draw up an SOP for shop floor activity or a PERT/CPM chart for a construction project but would find the idea rather out of place for a business initiative. Programme management has emerged as a discipline for monitoring execution but it only provides a partial and ineffective answer. The reason is simple. Just as quality has to be embedded in production processes and operators, execution has to also be carried out only by people entrusted with execution. Execution is not a monitor’s job, although monitoring may be part of execution, and if carried out by other agencies helpful to execution. This blog post proposes five facets of effective execution.

Execution chain

Execution is the practice of converting a plan into an action to achieve a goal. Execution, therefore, starts with goal setting itself, as Sean Covey’s book argues. If the logic is so clear, why is it that there tend to be huge differences in the execution effectiveness of different individuals or entities? Some attribute ineffective execution to inadequate goal setting and insufficient planning.  People subscribing to this view believe that as long as goals and actions are articulated clearly execution would happen automatically. Yet, execution tends to be weak in high-planning companies too. Some believe that execution has a significant behavioural content. Sean Covey’s book proposes that the four key elements of focus, leverage, engagement or accountability can be ensured in teams with appropriate behavioural conditioning. It advocates systemic ownership around key goals with execution itself being both an action and reward.

The planning based view is simplistic while the behaviour based view is elaborate. It is important to understand execution from different viewpoints, align them and integrate them under one execution value chain. At the lowest end, execution can be seen as a series of actions or events. An example of this is organizing a leader summit as an event that aligns the leadership team. However, organization of the event is just a start. At the next higher step, organizers tend to look for outcomes. In this case, successful conclusion with 100 percent participation and no dropouts and with at least 50 percent of participants providing active inputs could be outcomes. Even this, however, is not complete execution. At the next higher level, one would look for results, in terms of new collaborative networks being created or platforms created for post-summit follow-up. Most execution experts believe that the execution is completed with good results.

There are, however, two other important milestones towards the higher end of the execution value chain, namely accomplishment and actualization. Results are metricised numbers of performance. Quarter after quarter companies publish their results, and even if they are in line with goals companies may not have a sense of accomplishment. A sense of accomplishment in execution happens when the executing individuals and teams have sense of ownership, right from goal setting to accomplishment of results. A sense of accomplishment is not the final end, however. A feeling of actualization is the ultimate endpoint of execution. Actualization is a challenging concept, and has been dealt with by the author in his blog Strategy Musings on three occasions: “The Journey of Self-Actualization: A Leadership Process of Discovery, Development and Delivery”, August 28, 2012 (http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/2012/08/the-journey-of-self-actualization.html), Self-Actualization by One’s Self for Oneself: An Enlightened Process for the Elusive Goal”, April 21, 2013 (http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/2013/04/self-actualization-by-ones-self-for.html).

Leader reflections

If one has to travel the full length of execution value chain, the journey would require leader-follower interactions that focus not merely on any of the transition points of the execution chain but instead focus on the actualization end-point. The leader would need to typically evaluate himself or herself first; what would really fulfill himself or herself. A leader who is considering a leadership position in a turnaround setting would need to introspect or reflect which of the following could be the real trigger for his actualization: revenue, stock price, employee security or hall of fame. While one may say that all of the factors would be reflected in company valuation, the sense of fulfillment could come from completely different factors. It could, for example, be from a sense of learning that he has become a master of turnaround, which he may not be expressed or measured at all. For the employees involved, it may come from stepping that extra mile to give novel suggestions and have the fulfillment of accomplishing them.

A sense of actualization occurs by focusing on transformative goals rather than mundane goals, and by focusing on a few prioritized ones among them, rather than on every one of them. The leader should be able to identify the goals which are predominantly individual dependent, team oriented or business leadership specific. Delivering a lecture in the leader summit is an individual accomplishment while organizing the summit is a team accomplishment. Using the summit to transform the business is a business leadership accomplishment. Leaders need platforms and forums to articulate, prioritize, and focus on actions, and monitor outcomes and results on each of the groups. Once the forums are in place, taking them seriously, and staying engaged is an essential mind-set, for both leaders and followers. Continuous engagement helps in mutual reinforcement of leaders and followers towards fulfilment of goals. It also sets up mutual accountability which is a logical culmination of ownership.

Follower reflections

Admittedly, followers are unlikely to have the same uniqueness of perspectives or levels of motivation that leaders would have. Followers are generally a part of larger teams with significant interactive noise. Each team tends to have its own group dynamics in terms of behaviour towards performance. Followers tend to be of two categories; those who are determined to be leaders and those who are content to be followers. It occurs naturally for the first group to be highly execution oriented and for the second group to be passively participative. The relative mix of aspirant leaders and passive followers is not necessarily a driver of relative performance differentials. It does not, for example, follow that if there is a high proportion of aspirant leaders in a group, that group would automatically perform better. On the other hand, such a group could be more fractious and more energy dissipating.

Followers need to reflect on what could make them really a fulfilled part of a group. Some may like their performance to be outshining others in a group while some others may derive happiness from their group being more effective overall. Be that as may, followers usually struggle to arrive at a common understanding of the right dynamics for the group. This is partly due to a lack of understanding as to how group success, rather than individual success, can spell overall business success and partly due to a perception linking individual performance to career growth. Those groups which have a natural performance culture rather than a rewards driven performance culture tends to have more harmonious group dynamics.

Leader responsibilities

Visionary execution is what sets out a leader from others. Execution is a complex value chain starting with goals and ending with fulfilled delivery. Most leaders see a high performance culture in their organizations as an enabler for effective execution. That may be a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. Some others see their own personal productivity as a key driver of effective execution. Again, it may be an inspiring factor but not a sufficient one. Most boards believe that linking rewards to individual, group and company performance would motivate people appreciate the value of performance. This helps but not without some rancour of comparisons. Effective execution, like quality and safety, is a behavioural state.

A leader’s ability to mentor his organization on the various stages of execution is an important condition for setting in place a natural and inclusive performance culture for the company as a whole. From establishing critical, top priority goals in focus to guiding the team on a journey that extrapolates from actions, outcomes to results, accomplishments and finally fulfilments is the essence of effective execution. Even institutions derive actualization through effective execution. See the author’s blog post “Institutional Actualization: The 5A Process of Virtuosity”, Strategy Musings, May 19, 2013 (http://cbrao2008.blogspot.in/2013/05/institutional-actualization-5-process.html). There is a clear need for more contributions on effective execution practices in management and leadership literature.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on May 04, 2016

Multi-factorial Planning: Tricky Paradox or Timely Paradigm?

There is a general view that the greater the level of planning the greater could be the success of execution. Experts feel that Indian executives and firms plan less and aspire more as well as evaluate less and execute more, causing firms to be burdened with infeasible targets and unviable plans. Experts also propose Japan as the ultimate model of planning-controlled-execution and USA as a balanced model of planning-optimised-execution.  It is a moot point whether adopting of either Japanese or American model of business management would lead India to achieve better execution. That said, there are several perspectives of planning and execution that have emerged from global and Indian practice that are worthy of notice. Prior to moving forward on the topic, it is useful to consider what planning entails.

Planning typically requires data on the past, expectations on future, awareness of firm strengths and weaknesses as well as environmental opportunities and risks, analytical framework and a few other related inputs. Planning influences, and is influenced by, the length of the value chain. By nature, planning has deterministic ends but iterative processes. It is difficult to separate planning and execution. By and large, planning is considered a staff function while execution a line function. While planning is considered the starting point and governing platform of execution, planning is also considered to be a seasonal activity to be carried out by lean-staff at best. The question then is whether planning should remain a seasonal or continuous exercise, and in either case with narrow or broad participation. This post discusses some relevant issues and proposes a few contrarian thoughts as well.

Planning is disruptive

One of the paradoxical aspects of planning is that it is as much an enabler as it is an inhibitor. Without planning, goals cannot be established, strategies cannot be developed and execution cannot be effected. However, based on the inputs that are factored in, planning can also be inhibitory in nature. Given the current scenario of lead times in infrastructure and long gestation of projects, planning is essential to mitigate risks. At the same time, factoring in of the current delayed implementation of infrastructure projects can inhibit the very launch of a project. Planning tends to regulate as well as disrupt one’s thinking. If one asks a professional planner for advice on a new business venture, one would be inundated with more questions than answers. The questions can start from multiple business definitions to myriad aspirations that could be set. Executives must learn to use planning as a controlled accelerator rather than as a disruptive decelerator.  

Planning is not aspiration

Many confuse aspiration to be a goal or even a plan. One aspiration for a firm, for example, could be that the firm would launch all products successful in one market in all the balance global markets as well. This, however, is no more than an inspirational thought that could galvanize the organization into a new futuristic path. Believing in the aspiration as a goal could, however, lead the firm to a series of non-prioritized helter-skelter initiatives across the globe which the organization could fail to support. Structured prioritization coupled with a continuous reality check helps tame the aspirations to feasible and viable plans. The founders and CEOs have a major role to play in this moderation as they tend to be the primary customers for unbridled aspirations, and many times themselves the generators of mammoth aspirations, in organizations. Planning would be optimal when planners are blessed with creativity to dream but also accountability to aspirations.

Analysis is debilitating

Planning tends to be full of data points. For someone planning investments, the data points could include returns over the last several years of various asset classes, performance of individual funds, expected economic growth of domestic and foreign countries, likely expenditure profile of the investor, likely and emergency healthcare requirements and so on. Neither can all the data be captured nor can the analysis be mounted, let alone perfected. Notwithstanding the rise of big data analytics, it becomes impossible to factor in all relevant data points in a manner that they can complement human judgement which is so essential. Typically, deployment of larger than required planning formats tend to be highly debilitating to purposeful forward thinking.

Planning is visualization

Nothing can be farther from truth than to imagine that planning is best made only on paper or computer. In fact, the best plans of consummate planners are first visualized, and then only perfected on paper or computer. A consummate planner (all professional planners not being consummate planners!) has deep knowledge of the subject, and understands what it takes to achieve a goal. As a result of this deeply embedded knowledge, the consummate planner tends to get all the components of a plan in a visual framework in his mind. A consummate planner who is charged with the mission of producing a million smart phones as a green field project can visualize the site, factory and organization infrastructure as well as R&D, manufacturing and R&D value chain along with financial needs. This visualization leads to a healthy debate between the planner and the promoter on what is doable and not doable, and leads to a more purposeful and more relevant planning.

Planning is iterative

The most challenging part of planning is that a plan will always be a sum of moving parts. There could be changes even before the ink on the paper dries, euphemistically speaking. The answer to this challenge does not lie in either abdicating the planning process or getting overwhelmed by continuous analysis. The answer lies in being open to changes all the time. The best planning template would comprise a solid and stable core but flexible and adaptive peripherals. As an example, planned development of new expressway should always be firm on the alignment and lane sizing but should be flexible on development of social and industrial infrastructure alongside the expressway. A demand and revenue maximizing model for the peripherals would de-risk the core and keep the project on track. Reverting to the smart phone project, one could make a choice as to which of the three critical value drivers, viz., design, manufacturing and marketing (but not all the three) would be the solid core and which would be considered for total outsourcing, joint development or leveraged development.   

Planning is organizing

Planning and execution may be two sides of a coin but the coin itself is organizing. More than execution, planning is organizing. A plan without elements that cannot be organized cannot be a plan at all. Organizing here refers not only to factor inputs and resources but also to people. It would, for example, be impractical to plan a one lakh employee coding unit in USA when neither local STEM candidate pool nor HB1 visa limits can support the formation of such an organization. It may similarly be audacious to plan an Intel-competing semi-conductor plant in India without organizational clarity on how the technology and material value chain can be built and how people skills can be marshaled. Another rhetorical question, for example, could be whether Make in India would be successful without Skill India. Planning for Make in India must therefore be led by planning and executing for Skill India. A good planner would have a complete understanding not only the business value chain but also the organizational elements.   

Planning is addictive  

If execution is challenging and instantly calibrated by results, planning is addictive and could lead to perpetual procrastination. Professional planners tend to get cocooned with their own plans, and move from one plan to another rather than follow a plan-execute-plan cycle. It is not uncommon for planners who see their plans tripping with poor results plan for higher results rather than identify and resort to corrective actions. This approach is complemented by an executive leadership which hates to be identified with failures. As a result of this tricky combination of compulsive planners and escapist executives, planning tends to become an end in itself in certain firms. It is easy to separate firms which plan only for planning sake from firms which plan with an execution focus. The former survive more by make-believe (though not for far too long) while the latter prosper by value creation.

Timely paradigm

Planning is an essential foundation for building a strong and viable superstructure. However, planners must not lose sight of the ultimate goal of building lasting value on ground as opposed to the easy temptation of scaling up value on paper. To be able to do that, the tricky pitfalls of planning need to be avoided by resorting to a smart platform of planning interlaced with execution. The paradigm works with a leadership that integrates planning and execution, and looks at planning and execution on an end-to-end basis. The paradigm involves drawing up plans with a long term horizon, ensuring a solid core and flexible externalities. The leadership must watch not only how others are executing but also how others are planning. Korea succeeds not merely because of their speed in execution but more essentially because of their productivity in planning. An integrated paradigm of timely planning and speedy execution tends to be industry leading, and globally competitive.

Posted by Dr CB Rao on April 12, 2016